The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing

Transcription

1 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing 2012

2 This publication was prepared by the INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA). The WGEA aims to encourage the use of audit mandates and audit methods in the field of environmental protection and sustainable development by Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs). The WGEA has the mandate to help SAIs gain a better understanding of environmental auditing issues, facilitate exchange of information and experiences among SAIs, and publish guidelines and other informative materials. This publication may be downloaded free of charge from the INTOSAI WGEA website Permission is granted to copy and distribute this publication, giving appropriate credit, provided that such copies are for academic, personal or professional use and are not sold or used for commercial gain. Data analysis: OÜ Faktum & Ariko and the Secretariat of INTOSAI WGEA Design: Velvet OÜ ISBN (PDF) January 2013

3 Acronyms and abbreviations A Acronyms and abbreviations 4 AFROSAI African Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing ARABOSAI Arab Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions ASOSAI Asian Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions BA Bachelor of Arts CAROSAI Caribbean Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna CO 2 Carbon Dioxide EA Environmental Auditing European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions GMO Genetically modified organism IDI INTOSAI Development Initiative INTOSAI International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions INCOSAI International Congress of Supreme Audit Institutions IPPC International Plant Protection Convention ITTA International Tropical Timber Agreement MARPOL - International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreement NO X Nitrogen Oxide OLACEFS Organization of Latin American and Caribbean Supreme Audit Institutions OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic PASAI Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions PIC Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides on International Trade (Rotterdam Convention) POPs - Persistent Organic Pollutants RWGEA al Working Group on Environmental Auditing SAI Supreme Audit Institution SO 2 Sulphur Dioxide SPSS Statistical Product and Service Solutions (software package) UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USA - The United States of America WGEA Working Group on Environmental Auditing

4 TTable of Contents Table of Contents Acronyms and abbreviations 4 5The 7th Survey on Environmental Auditing Table of contents 5 Introduction 6 Summary 8 RESULTS Auditing mandate Environmental audits The impact of environmental audits Environmental auditing capacity Cooperation between SAIs WGEA products 34 APPENDICES 37 A. Data and methodology 37 B. Survey questionnaire 39 C. Detailed results in table format 53 D. Survey respondents 76

5 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Introduction 6 IIntroduction In recent years, many Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) worldwide have initiated or further expanded the practice of environmental auditing. This trend goes hand in hand with increasing global awareness of the finite supply of most natural resources and the burden that human activities place on Earth s ecosystems. Public sector audit practices are being refined on topics such as natural resource management, the effectiveness of international environmental agreements, domestic environmental policies and programmes and sustainable development. About INTOSAI and WGEA The International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) operates as an umbrella organisation for the external public sector audit community, drawing together SAIs from 190 countries that belong to the United Nations or its specialized agencies. Established in 1953, INTOSAI remains the single most important international framework for SAIs, promoting exchange of knowledge and the development of professional audit tools and capacities among its members. The INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA) is the largest working group of INTOSAI, with 72 member SAIs and a 16-member Steering Committee. INTOSAI WGEA aims to improve the use of the audit mandate and audit instruments at SAIs disposal specifically in the case of environmental protection and sustainable development. Exchange of knowledge, cooperative audit activities, joint development of environmental auditing guidelines and background materials are continuously promoted to achieve the WGEA s goals. Given the magnitude of INTOSAI, professional and technical cooperation also takes place at the regional level: Africa (AFROSAI), the Arab countries (ARABOSAI), Asia (ASOSAI), the Caribbean (CAROSAI), Europe (), Latin America (OLACEFS) and the South Pacific (PASAI). The USA and Canada are not directly affiliated with any of the INTOSAI regions. al working groups on environmental auditing (RWGEAs) have been established in six INTOSAI regions.

6 About the Survey Since 1992, the INTOSAI WGEA Secretariat has conducted a total of seven surveys to map global and regional trends in environmental auditing together with the challenges SAIs face upon undertaking environmental audits. This report has been compiled on the basis of the 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing carried out from February-May 2012 and targets the period of January 2009 to December The 7 th Survey was distributed among all 190 INTOSAI members by . The SAIs could submit their responses via regular mail or , or complete an online version of the questionnaire. Aside from the English version, Arabic, French and Spanish questionnaires were made available for the convenience of respondents. The overall response rate was 62%: 112 SAIs completed the survey and six audit offices informed they had neither conducted nor were planning to undertake environmental audits in the near future. Of the 112 respondents, 16 had had no relevant experience in the previous three years, but were participating as they were planning to start conducting environmental audits. The report is structured along the lines of the questionnaire, with separate chapters on auditing mandate, environmental audits, the impact of audits, environmental auditing capacity, cooperation between SAIs and use of WGEA products and services. A data and methodology overview, the original survey questionnaire, detailed results and the list of respondents are presented in appendices. The survey report is presented in both text and graphs. Several comparisons with the 6 th Survey on Environmental Auditing are drawn to identify important trends and developments since It must be noted, however, that the amount and line-up of respondents are not identical to those of the 6 th Survey (see Appendices A and D). To maintain the report s legibility and clarity, however, the reader is not burdened with detailed interpretations in this respect; rather, appropriate reservations are presented in places where they appeared relevant in the course of data analysis. The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Introduction 7 We wish to express our deep gratitude to the SAIs that took the time to participate in the survey. Environmental audit was defined in the survey as a financial, compliance and performance audit that evaluates and gives opinions on environment-related matters.

7 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Summary 8 SSummary The results of the INTOSAI WGEA 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing reflect the global status of and trends in public sector environmental auditing practice on the basis of the work that 112 SAIs worldwide undertook from Auditing mandate The legal mandate of the majority of the SAIs who responded enables them to undertake performance, compliance and financial audits on environmental issues. An explicit environmental auditing mandate has been granted by law to 1/5 th of the audit offices who responded. For most SAIs, an auditing mandate ensures access to the national government and state-owned enterprises and companies. Non-governmental public organisations and private sector entities remain somewhat beyond the reach of audit offices. Since 2009, no changes have been made to the mandates of 95% of SAIs. The results indicate that increasingly more SAIs can undertake environmental audits, using a larger variety of methods and tools and scrutinizing different government as well as private sector and third sector entities. At the same time, legal mandates have been updated in few SAIs and the proportion of audit offices with a specific environmental auditing mandate has remained constant. Thus, increased activities of SAIs in the field have likely resulted from SAIs becoming more aware of the ways in which their traditional mandate can be applied to examine environmental laws, programmes and policies than on account of updates to their legal mandates. However, it is still important to note that for approximately 10% of the audit offices who responded, an inadequate mandate is a perceived barrier to environmental auditing and also to international cooperation on the issue. Environmental audits Since 2009, SAIs have most often examined environmental issues in their performance and compliance audits. By total volume and objectives, many completed audits remain of the compliance type, while increasingly more performance audits have also been undertaken. The total number of environmental audits conducted by SAIs from increased remarkably compared to the previous survey period, and approximately 2/3 rd of respondents indicated that their volume of environmental audits would increase in the coming years. Among other things, the XX INCOSAI (congress of INTOSAI) held in 2010, a year prior to the 7 th Survey, where Environmental Auditing and Sustainable Development was one of the main themes, can have also contributed to this trend by raising the awareness of environmental auditing in SAIs. Positively, environmental issues have also been integrated into audits on other topics in several SAIs, and half of the respondents regarded this as a development their respective offices would need to work towards in the coming years. 1/3 rd of audit offices have audited some or all aspects of sustainable development since 2009 (as also per the 6 th Survey) and increasingly more SAIs have used multilateral environmental agreements in their work. In terms of future perspectives for environmental auditing, the survey revealed that the plans of SAIs do not always meet actual development needs, possibly highlighting a lack of resources and/or capacity. The gap is especially noticeable in the case of developing performance indicators and training on environmental issues and auditing (notably more SAIs underscored the need for these developments than marked them as planned).

8 Impact of audits Cooperation between SAIs As a remarkable indicator of progress since 2009, 86% of SAIs stated that they were considering the impact of their environmental audits. Government responses to audit recommendations and follow-up audits have served as the main tools to this end. The area that the SAIs perceived as most improved as a result of their environmental audits was the functioning of government policies and programmes. 80% of respondents publish the results of their environmental audits, and almost all of them consider the communication of findings beneficial in increasing the impact of audits. Notably, 6% of SAIs are not making any parts of their audit reports public. Environmental auditing capacity In 35% of SAIs, a separate unit dealing with environmental auditing exists, and in the majority of audit offices (71%) one or more percent of employees work on environmental audits. On average, 1-4% of SAI staff are assigned to environmental issues and in half of SAIs environmental auditors work also with other topics aside from the environment. 61% of respondents mentioned plans to increase their number of environmental auditors in the coming years. Environment-specific competencies exist in approximately half of SAIs (i.e. education or work experience in the sector). Performance auditing experience and compliance auditing experience emerged in the survey as the prevailing competencies of SAI employees working on environmental audits. A shortage of environmental data, insufficient monitoring and reporting systems and a lack of human resources, skills and expertise have been encountered most frequently by SAIs when undertaking environmental audits. As 2/3 rd of respondents identified existing environmental auditing potential in their SAI, human resource challenges could be overcome by utilizing this; however, the lack of skills and expertise on the part of those already devoted to environmental auditing in many SAIs implies that capacity-building via training and raising competence levels are just as, if not more, crucial. International cooperation on environmental auditing has intensified since 2009: 2/3 rd of SAIs reported having cooperated with another SAI on environmental issues (in the 6 th Survey, approximately half had). Exchange of information and audits on multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) have been the main areas of cooperation. 76% of SAIs have also been involved in the work of their regional environmental auditing working group. A lack of resources (increasingly so, compared to the 6 th Survey), an absence of skills and expertise and a shortage of partners were listed by SAIs as reasons for no international cooperation experience on environmental auditing. WGEA products The website of the WGEA remains the best-known source of information for SAIs and the use of the webbased products of the working group is continually rising. Of the available guidance materials, Towards Auditing Waste Management and Cooperation between Supreme Audit Institutions: Tips and Examples for Cooperative Audits between SAIs have found most use in audit offices. Many SAIs are expecting additional guidance materials on the topics of waste and water audit and proposed climate change, energy, water and sustainable development as the potential central themes of the WGEA s next work plan for The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Summary 9

9 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Auditing mandate 10 1Auditing mandate The legal mandate of an SAI defines the types of audits it is able to conduct, the extent of access it has to information held by government and non-government entities and the audit tools it can utilize in its work. As the mandates of SAIs worldwide differ, various working methodologies can be seen being implemented and several kinds of audits issued. This chapter provides an overview of the legal status of SAIs in the context of environmental audits: the level of access and set of tools the mandates provide for the undertaking of environmental audits and how the situation has changed since the WGEA s last survey in In responding to the 7 th Survey, the majority of SAIs stated that they had a mandate allowing them to conduct performance (94%), compliance (91%) and financial audits (88%) on environmental issues. Priori audit (audit in advance of expenditure) was not identified with as often, with 32% of respondents indicating the possibility to apply the audit type (Graph 1). Graph 2. Does your SAI s legislative mandate refer specifically to environmental auditing? (% of SAIs, n=112) Results On the whole, since the 6 th Survey, a certain expansion of SAIs mandate access can be observed for all audit types. But as the majority of respondents did not report on actual changes in SAI legislation since 2009 (Graph 4), the increase in positive answers seems to be the result of SAIs becoming more aware of environmental auditing and using different methods in conducting environmental audits. In the survey, it also emerged that approximately 1/5 th of respondents have an explicit environmental auditing mandate (Graph 2). 19% Yes Graph 1. Does your SAI have a legislative mandate to audit environmental issues in? (% of SAIs, n=112) No 81% Yes No Financial audits 88% 12% Compliance audits 91% 9% Performance audits 94% 6% Priori audits 32% 67%

10 Graph 3. What level of access does your SAI s mandate give to undertake environmental auditing of the following governmental and non-governmental organisations? (% of SAIs, n=112) Full Access Partial Access No Access The national government Provincial, regional, or state governments Local, municipal, or community governing bodies State-owned enterprises or state-owned companies Semi-governmental organisations Non-governmental public enterprises or organisations Private sector enterprises or organisations 94% 70% 68% 82% 48% 13% The amount of audit offices with a specific environmental auditing mandate has not significantly changed over the past three years. At the same time, many SAIs have increased and have plans to further increase their volume of environmental audits in the coming years (Chapter 2). This indicates that an explicit environmental auditing mandate or the expansion of SAIs traditional mandate is not always necessary for the undertaking of environmental audits. However, an inadequate mandate was still regarded as a barrier by several ARABOSAI, CAROSAI and PASAI audit offices (Chapter 4). It is therefore possible that establishing a specific reference to environmental audits in the legal mandate could help some SAIs expand their activities in the environmental field. 2% 3% 3% 17% 8% 17% 14% 13% 5% 43% 9% 44% 43% 33% 65% No significant trends in SAIs access to different institutional levels since the 6 th Survey can be identified. A small increase in access is apparent for all institution types, with the most notable one that of semi-governmental organisations (non-access decreased by 13%). The majority of audit offices (95%) noted in the survey that no changes had been made to their mandate since 2009 (Graph 4). Of the six SAIs that recorded legislative changes from , one gained an explicit environmental auditing mandate, three were granted a mandate for performance audits and one was granted access to state-owned enterprises and companies. One SAI lost its mandate to inspect public sector revenue. The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Auditing mandate 11 An institutional dimension was also included in the survey questionnaire. Most SAIs responded as having full access to their national governments (94%), stateowned enterprises or companies (82%), provincial, regional or state governments (70%) and local, municipal or community governing bodies (68%) when undertaking environmental audits (Graph 3). Around half of the SAIs stated having full access to semi-governmental organisations (an increase from 27% to 48% since 2009). Access to non-governmental public enterprises or organisations and to private sector enterprises or organisations seems most limited. The partial access response relatively often selected in these cases likely translates to the possibility of an SAI to inspect only the use of the public funds allotted to these entities. Graph 4. Has your SAI s environmental auditing mandate changed since 1 January 2009? (% of SAIs, n=112) Yes No 5% 95%

11 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Auditing mandate 12 s AFROSAI: All respondents have a mandate to audit environment-related issues in compliance and performance audits. The results indicate increased access to various levels of government and state-owned enterprises. These trends may be influenced by 10 new survey responses from the region (did not take part of the 6 th Survey). 33% of SAIs have a specific reference to environmental auditing in their legal mandate a higher share than in most other regions. 19% of SAIs have a mandate to conduct priori audits. ARABOSAI: In a significant increase since 2009, all respondents have a legal mandate to audit environment-related issues in compliance and performance audits. SAIs access to national government and state-owned enterprises seem also to have notably expanded. At the same time, none of the SAIs listed concrete examples of changes in their legal status which could point to an increased awareness and experience in environmental auditing. ASOSAI: Progressively more SAIs perceived themselves as having a mandate to conduct compliance (from 76% to 91%) and performance audits (from 82% to 94%) on the environment. Results also point to increased access to state-owned enterprises and nongovernmental organisations. However, only 3% of SAIs mentioned changes in their legal status. : No significant trends can be noted since Almost all SAIs can conduct financial, compliance and performance audits on environmental subjects. While only 14% of respondents have an explicit environmental auditing mandate and the mandates of SAIs do not otherwise stand out as more extensive, many audits are still conducted (Chapter 2) and cooperation between SAIs is close (Chapter 5). OLACEFS: A special environmental auditing mandate is more common in this region (33%). There has been a notable increase in the proportion of SAIs with a mandate for financial (from 64% to 87%), performance (from 79% to 93%) and priori audits (from 29% to 40%) on the environment. While no concrete changes in the mandates of SAIs have occurred since 2009, progressively more respondents regarded access to semi- and non-governmental organisations as having expanded which could point to an increased awareness/experience. PASAI: Compared to 2009, fewer SAIs perceived themselves as having the ability to conduct compliance (from 86% to 67%) and priori audits (from 29% to 11%) on the environment. Four new respondents from a total of nine may have influenced the result here. One SAI has a special environmental auditing mandate. Access to various institutional levels has increased, and 100% of respondents perceived full access to state-owned enterprises (up from 43% in 2009). CAROSAI: SAIs in the region have a relatively low level of access to their national governments (67%) compared to other regions and often regard their legal mandate as not allowing them to conduct audits on environmental issues. However, a small increase since 2009 is apparent at many levels. None of the respondents have a special environmental auditing mandate. USA and Canada: For both SAIs the auditing mandate has remained unchanged and enables them to conduct environmental audits of most types. The two SAIs have a more limited access to local, municipal and community governing bodies and private sector enterprises compared to many other respondents.

12 2Environmental audits The second group of survey questions was targeted at the type and volume of environmental audits conducted by SAIs since 1 January Questions about international environmental agreements, sustainable development and innovative methodologies were also asked, as well as those regarding prospects for the near future. It appears that the most common types of environmental audits conducted by SAIs from are performance audits (75%) and compliance audits (66%). Approximately half of the respondents stated that they had conducted financial audits and just 12% priori audits (Graph 5). Compared to the previous survey, the total volume of environmental audits conducted by SAIs has increased remarkably, even doubling in some cases: Graph 5. Which of the following types of environmental audit has your SAI conducted since 1 January 2009? (% of SAIs, n=112) Performance audits Compliance audits Financial audits Priori audits Graph 6. Since 1 January 2009, has the total number of environmental audits conducted in your SAI compared to the previous period...? (% of SAIs, n=112) Increased 75% 66% 48% 12% 48% The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Environmental audits financial audits (383 in 2009); 1203 compliance audits (622 in 2009); 1010 performance audits (640 in 2009); and 1382 non-environmental audits in which environmental issues were considered (a new enquiry; 50% of the whole number was reported by one SAI from the OLACEFS region). It should be noted that as one audit can simultaneously be a financial, compliance and performance audit (consisting of elements of one, some or all three areas), the sum of all types does not reflect the total number of audits. Remained the same Decreased N/A 43% 8% 1% The impressive increase in audits is also reflected in individual SAI responses, with 48% observing an increase in the amount of environmental audits conducted from compared to the 6 th Survey period (Graph 6).

13 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Environmental audits 14 As to the future, almost 2/3 rd of the SAIs plan to increase their volume of environmental audits over the next three years (Graph 7) while others (35%) intend to maintain their current level. The SAIs were asked to rate potential audit objectives on a scale of 0-3 according to how frequently they were considered in environmental audits undertaken from The SAIs attributed the highest average ratings to compliance with domestic environmental legislation and compliance with domestic environmental policies (Graph 8). These two objectives were also the most common in the 6 th Survey. Environmental impact of non-environmental government programmes and evaluation of environmental impact of proposed environmental policies and programmes emerged as the least relevant aspects of investigation. Graph 7. How does your SAI plan to change the volume of conducting environmental audits in the next three years? (% of SAIs, n=112) Since the 6 th Survey, the importance of performance of government environmental programmes seems to have lessened slightly, while compliance with international environmental agreements and treaties has grown in importance. The SAIs considered the top five environmental issues for their countries to be drinking water; municipal, solid and non-hazardous waste; forestry and timber; minerals; and climate change mitigation (Graph 9). These issues were also high on the priority list in 2009, and drinking water remains most crucial. Graph 9. What does your SAI consider to be the five most important environmental issues facing your country? (% reflects proportion of SAIs that marked issue as being among five most important, n=112) Increase 63% Drinking water - quality and supply 38% Remain the same 35% Municipal, solid and non-hazardous waste 31% Decrease 1% Forestry and timber 30% N/A 2% Minerals, such as mining, gas and oil 26% Climate change mitigation 24% Graph 8. Please rate the potential objectives of environmental audits listed below according to how they have been used by your SAI since 1 January 2009 in the following way: 3 objective always considered; 2 objective often considered; 1 objective rarely considered; 0 objective not considered. (avarage rating, n=112) Compliance with domestic environmental legislation Compliance with domestic environmental policies Compliance with international environmental agreements and treaties Performance of government environmetal policies Performance of government environmental programs Fair presentation of financial statements and expenditures Environmental impacts of non-environmental government programs Evaluation of environmental impacts of proposed environmental policies and programs

14 The top three environmental issues that the SAIs have audited (Graph 10) are municipal, solid and non-hazardous waste; forestry and timber; and quality and supply of drinking water. The SAIs listed protected areas and natural parks (39%), forestry and timber resources (34%), general waste (32%) climate change adaptation (30%) and drinking water (30%) as the main subjects of their environmental audits over the next three years. Graph 10. Which topics your SAI has ever audited and which it intends to audit in the next three years? (% of SAIs, n=112) Municipal, solid and non-hazardous waste Forestry and timber Drinking water quality and supply General waste Pollution of water bodies through industrial and agricultural sources Wastewater treatment Protected areas and natural parks Fisheries (freshwater and marine) Climate change mitigation Topic audited 53% 50% 47% 41% 38% 38% 38% 38% 36% Topic will be audited in next 3 years 25% 34% 30% 32% 25% 21% 39% 23% 29% The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Environmental audits 15 Biodiversity 33% 27% Infrastructure Hazardous waste Water quantity management or management of watersheds Medical waste Minerals, such as mining, gas and oil Marine pollution Local air quality, such as smog, particulates, SO 2,NO x and CO 2 Environmental financing Rivers and lakes Agriculture Transportation, traffic and mobility Climate change adaption Contaminated sites and soil pollution 33% 32% 31% 30% 29% 29% 29% 26% 25% 25% 25% 24% 24% 21% 23% 24% 23% 28% 13% 15% 23% 15% 23% 21% 30% 17%

15 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Environmental audits 16 Roughly three-quarters of the respondents indicated that they had examined or planned to use international multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in their work. Two of the most popular MEAs that stood out, as also per the previous survey, were the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (26%) and its Kyoto Protocol (31%, see Graph 11). Both the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC are popular MEAs likely to be audited in the next three years a quarter of all SAIs are planning to consider these agreements in their work. major global agreements that the SAIs have and will increasingly examine are the Convention on Biological Diversity; the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Graph 11. Please mark the international environmental agreements or treaties your SAI has audited since 1 January 2009 and plans to audit in the next three years (% of SAIs, n=112) Protocol to the UNFCCC (Kyoto Protocol) International agreements or treaties audited since % Disposal (the Basel Convention); the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). 28% of SAIs have commenced or completed audits of their countries progress in sustainable development (Graph 12), a concept defined in the questionnaire as development that integrates social, environmental and economic objectives. This result is largely the same as in the 6 th Survey. Three popular themes of audits given as examples of investigating all or some aspects of sustainable development by SAIs were water, waste and forestry. International agreements or treaties planned to audit in the next three years 25% United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Convention on Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) 26% 13% 11% 8% 8% 6% 25% 20% 15% 17% 13% 16% Graph 12. Since 1 January 2009, has your SAI started or completed audits of your country s progress in sustainable development? (% of SAIs, n=112) N/A 1% Yes 28% 71% No

16 With the complexity of environmental auditing tools and approaches in mind, the SAIs were invited to describe innovative work methodologies they had used in their audits. Geospatial technology (10 SAIs), external expertise (10 SAIs) and best practice guidelines or standards (8 SAIs) were the tools most frequently considered by respondents as innovative. Focus groups, surveys and questionnaires, cooperation with other SAIs and media are further examples. The survey results show that the most needed SAI developments are training on environmental auditing (74%), training on environmental issues (71%) and exchange of knowledge with other SAIs (71%). Developments Graph 13. Please mark developments that you regard as necessary in your SAI and developments you have already planned in your SAI. (% of SAIs, n=112) Necessary developments in SAI already planned in SAIs are exchange of knowledge with other SAIs (45%), training on environmental auditing (38%) and integration of environmental issues in other audits (37%), similar to the previous survey. Comparing the needs and plans of the SAIs (Graph 13) reveals that the actual plans of SAIs do not meet the identified needs, possibly indicating a lack of resources and/or capacity. For instance, 71% of respondents regarded training on environmental issues as an important development area, but in reality only 29% have training planned for the next three years. The gaps are apparent in all regions. Planned developments in SAI The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Environmental audits 17 Training in environmental auditing 74% 38% Training in environmental issues Exchange of knowledge with other SAIs Development of environmental performance indicators in audits External expert advice More attention to quality and reliability of information Integration of environmental issues in other audits Evaluation of the impact of work and ways to improve the impact Peer review by other SAIs More measurement of effectiveness of policy Creation of a pool of environmental auditors Evaluation by external experts (for instance, universities) Creation of an environmental unit within our SAI Development of new products that are not environmental audits 71% 71% 63% 60% 56% 52% 50% 48% 47% 40% 35% 29% 19% 29% 45% 13% 26% 21% 37% 16% 13% 19% 21% 9% 14% 9%

17 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Environmental audits 18 s AFROSAI: The environmental audits completed are by volume mostly compliance audits, and this is in correlation with the objective of compliance with domestic policies most often considered (also as per 2009). 52% of SAIs have increased their number of environmental audits and in 33% of SAIs the volume has remained unchanged. An impressive 90% of SAIs plan to undertake more environmental audits in the next three years. Drinking water and waste are regarded as the most important environmental issues. SAIs also plan water (52%) and waste (43%) audits over the next three years, as well as forestry and timber resources (52%), minerals (43%) and protected areas and natural parks (43%). As in the 6 th Survey, relatively few SAIs have considered MEAs in their audits, but increasingly more plan to use them in future. Specific to the region, the Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification is the most important MEA (38% plan to audit this), followed by CITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Aarhus Convention and UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol (29% plan to audit these). 24% of SAIs have audited some or all aspects of sustainable development. Development of environmental performance indicators (86%) and peer review by other SAIs (81%) are the most crucial development needs, but very few SAIs have planned activities in this regard. Integration of environmental issues in other audits (71%) and training on environmental auditing (52%) are developments SAIs foresee as likely to happen in the near future. ARABOSAI: SAIs have mainly undertaken environmental audits of the compliance or performance type (89% of SAIs for both). Compliance with domestic legislation/policies has been the prevalent audit objective. 67% of SAIs have increased their number of environmental audits and 89% of respondents reported their intent to conduct more environmental audits in the next three years. Local air quality emerged as the top environmental issue (44%) for the region s countries, surpassing waste, the most frequently mentioned theme in SAIs have plans to audit various environmental topics in the near future: general and medical waste; minerals; contaminated sites; fisheries; agriculture; energy; and wastewater and water quantity management (all mentioned by 33% of respondents). MEAs remain little examined since 2009, but 44% of SAIs intend to use UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol in their upcoming audits. 22% of SAIs have audited some or all aspects of sustainable development. While the development of performance indicators (78%) and creation of an environmental unit in SAIs (67%) are important development needs, only 1-2 audit offices have planned activities in these fields. ASOSAI: SAIs reported mainly environmental performance (81%) and compliance audits (75%) as having been conducted. Notably, seven SAIs in the region (22%) have also completed priori audits. In 59% of SAIs, more environmental audits have been completed since 2009 compared to the previous period and 66% of respondents plan to further increase their number of audits in the next three years. Similar to the 6th survey, compliance with domestic environmental legislation emerged as the most common audit objective. 44% of SAIs marked forestry and timber and 31% minerals and mining as the top environmental concerns in their countries. In the coming years, forestry and timber sector audits will also be undertaken most often (31% of SAIs) alongside climate change mitigation and adaptation (28%). 22% of respondents have audited some or all aspects of sustainable development and the same proportion of SAIs will consider the Kyoto Protocol in their future work. 75% of SAIs considered training on environmental auditing an important development need, and an encouraging 41% of SAIs will take measures to meet this. However, a notable gap emerged between the perceived need for more attention to quality and reliability of information (69%) and the actual plans of SAIs to overcome this challenge (just 13%). CAROSAI: Of the six respondents, only two SAIs reported previous environmental auditing experience, and survey results reveal that, by volume, compliance audits represent the majority of the audits completed in the region. Since 2009, increasingly more audits have been conducted in only one audit office, but all respondents informed of future plans to start or expand environmental auditing. 50% of SAIs considered drinking water, municipal, solid and non-hazardous waste and natural disaster management their top environmental concerns. In the coming three years, 33% SAIs plan to carry out audits on the topics of medical waste, protected areas and natural parks and natural disaster management. Similar to the 6 th survey, the region s

18 audit offices are yet to undertake audits on sustainable development and MEAs. Almost all SAIs (83%) highlighted the creation of a pool of environmental auditors, the integration of environmental issues in other audits, training on environmental issues, development of performance indicators and peer review by other SAIs as crucial areas of improvement. Regrettably, virtually no respondents foresaw actual developments in their offices in these fields in the near future. : On environmental subjects, SAIs have carried out mostly performance (86%) and compliance audits (73%). The total volume of environmental audits has increased in 46% of audit offices, but also decreased in 11%. As an indicator of stability, 59% of SAIs intend to maintain their current volume of environmental auditing, and 35% to increase it. Energy and energy efficiency (41%) and climate change mitigation (32%) emerged as the most important environmental issues for countries (natural resources and waste in 2009) while protected areas and natural parks (38%) were more frequently mentioned in the case of planned environmental audits in the survey. More SAIs have used MEAs in their audit work here than in any other region (more than half of respondents) and the same observation applies to sustainable development audits (32%). The Kyoto Protocol is the unrivalled MEA: 62% of SAIs have examined and 30% will examine the agreement in the next three years. Training on environmental auditing (73%) and environmental issues (65%) were regarded as necessary developments in SAIs, but training was planned in notably fewer SAIs (30% and 16% respectively). Exchange of knowledge with other SAIs was perceived the most probable area of progress by 54% of respondents. OLACEFS: Environmental audits completed in the region since 2009 have mainly been of the compliance (87%) and performance (73%) types. Compliance with domestic environmental legislation has been assessed in most of the audits conducted. The volume of environmental audits has either increased (53%) or remained the same (47%) in an almost equal number of SAIs. 2/3 rd of the region s respondents plan to increase their level of environmental audits in the next three years. As also per the 6 th Survey, water remains of great importance to these countries drinking water was underscored by 53% of SAIs. Municipal, solid and non-hazardous waste, minerals, and forestry and timber came a close second (top priorities for 47%). Upcoming audits will be made on the topics of protected areas and natural parks (67%), climate change adaptation (60%) and drinking water (60%). 27% of SAIs have audited some or all aspects of sustainable development; 60% have examined the UNFCCC agreement and 40% of respondents have also used the Kyoto Protocol and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in their audits. The Convention on Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) will be considered by 40% of SAIs in the coming years. Respondents deemed the exchange of knowledge with other SAIs (87%) and training on environmental issues and the development of performance indicators (80%) as the most needed developments. Interestingly, the top planned development in SAIs appeared to be external expert advice (40% of SAIs). PASAI: Performance audits constitute the highest proportion (89%) of completed environment-related audits since 2009 and performance of government environmental policies and programmes was a frequently mentioned audit objective in the survey. For 56% of SAIs the total number of audits has increased, but one SAI also reported a decrease since % of respondents plan to expand their environmental auditing practices and 33% to continue at their current level in the coming three years. Drinking water is evidently the top environmental issue for this region s countries (as it was in 2009). Notably, seven of the nine respondents have audited their countries fisheries stocks - a direct influence of the IDI/PASAI cooperative performance audit on fisheries. Of the future audit topics mentioned, pollution of water bodies through industrial and agricultural sources recurred often (44% of SAIs), followed by climate change adaptation, general and medical waste, urban environment quality and the environment and human health (33%). The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement appeared to be the most utilized MEA in environmental audits (three SAIs; very probably influenced by the cooperative fisheries audit) and the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol will be examined more in future (also by three SAIs). 33% of respondents have audited some or all aspects of sustainable development, a slight upward trend since the 6 th Survey. Training on environmental issues and environmental auditing were marked as crucial developments by almost all SAIs, but few respondents (one and three respectively) knew of concrete plans to meet these demands in their offices. The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Environmental audits 19

19 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing Environmental audits 20 USA and Canada: These two SAIs have mainly conducted performance audits and integrated environmental issues into a considerable number of other audits. The volume of audits has remained the same or decreased slightly and the respondents did not predict significant changes for the next three-year period. Compliance with domestic legislation and performance of government policies and programmes are almost always the central audit objectives. For both the USA and Canada, environmental financing is an important issue and SAIs plan to audit this field in the near future along with various topics related to climate change, contaminated sites, minerals, fisheries, biodiversity, chemicals management and protected areas. The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol have been examined by both SAIs, as well as progress in sustainable development. Respondents regarded the integration of environmental issues into other audits, staff training, exchange of knowledge with other SAIs, expert advice and peer review developments both necessary and planned in their offices in the near future.

20 3The impact of environmental audits The main purpose of the environmental auditing undertaken by SAIs worldwide is to ensure that audit findings lead to positive changes in the state of the environment and in the use of public resources. However, establishing links between audits and their direct impact can prove a challenge due to the complex nature of the subject matter the environment itself. This chapter provides an insight into the different methods SAIs use to measure and increase the effectiveness of their work and the challenges they face therein. Of the 112 SAIs who completed the survey, 86% attempt to evaluate the impact of their environmental audits. The increase in activities considering audit impact has been significant since the previous survey in 2009, when only 56% of respondents identified with the practice. often also a deadline for carrying out recommended actions (37%). 16% of respondents could not identify any special conditions that their audit recommendations established and one SAI stated that it did not make recommendations in audits (Graph 15). Graph 14. How does your SAI measure the impact of your environmental audits? (% of SAIs, n=112) Government response to audit recommendations Follow-up audit Monitor the implementation of recommendations/audit findings Media coverage Parliamentary hearings 66% 63% 57% 46% 43% The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing The impact of environmental audits 21 Impact is most often measured (Graph 14) by observing government responses to audit recommendations (66%) and conducting follow-up audits (63%). In 2009 the same two measures were listed as the most popular, albeit in lower proportions. A lack of and/or the quality of environmental data (15 SAIs), untimely or non-implementation of audit recommendations (13 SAIs) and a lack of know-how in SAIs (13 SAIs) were regarded as the main factors complicating the evaluation of audit impacts. Our SAI does not measure impact of environmental audits Any other method N/A Graph 15. Do the recommendations made by your SAI in environmental audits usually include specific conditions? (% of SAIs, n=112) Responsible institution(s) Deadline set for carrying out recommended actions 4% 4% 14% 60% 37% As is apparent from the results of this and the 6 th Survey, audit recommendations are a key tool in achieving impact. Recommendations can help an auditee improve its operations and SAIs to keep track of the process of actions undertaken post-audit. The survey results indicate that recommendations made by SAIs in environmental audits usually determine responsible institutions (60%) and less No specific conditions Our SAI does not make recommendations in environmental audits N/A 12% 16% 1% 13%

21 The 7 th Survey on Environmental Auditing The impact of environmental audits 22 The implementation of the recommendations of environmental audits is usually tracked via follow-up audits (67%) and less frequently with a follow-up survey (30%). Just 3% of SAIs stated that implementation was not followed up at all (Graph 16). To elaborate upon the extent of the impact of the work of SAIs, the respondents were asked to assess the level of positive developments having taken place on account of their environmental audits. Many SAIs noted that their answers were subjective evaluations as the exact impact was hard to determine or that there was no formalised evaluation system in place in their office. 73% of SAIs regarded their environmental audits as having had either medium or high impact in helping government departments improve the functioning of policies and programmes (Graph 17). A relatively high proportion of respondents also observed a more or less strong impact with regard to helping auditees evaluate their capacity to develop and implement environmental policies or programmes (59%) and to formulate environmental legislation or environmental policies and programmes (53%). Less impact was sensed in the case of the environmental management systems and environmental reports. Since the previous survey, the proportion of SAIs that consider their audits to have no impact has notably decreased for all impact levels. However, as the methodology of the question has been slightly adjusted with a low impact dimension introduced in the 7 th Survey the comparison could be somewhat distorted. Graph 16. How does your SAI track the implementation of the recommendations of environmental audits? (% of SAIs, n=112) Follow-up audit Follow-up survey Implementation is not followed up Our SAI does not make recommendations in environmental audits N/A 67% 30% 3% 1% 19% 13% Based on their experiences, a quarter of respondents prioritized good communication with auditees as the most effective way of increasing the impact of audits. Publishing audit results, monitoring the implementation of audit recommendations and communicating with parliament were also mentioned. According to the survey results, the top 3 means for communicating the results of environmental audits (Graph 18) are publishing full audit reports online (55%), distributing printed versions of audit reports (53%) and issuing press releases (47%). 6% of the SAIs stated that no parts of their audit reports were made public. Additionally, many SAIs also publish audit results in their annual reports, or the results appear in the reports of their respective parliaments. The SAIs expressed rather positive opinions about the increase in audit impact achieved by disseminating the results (Graph 19). In total 79% of SAIs assessed that communication of the results of audits had increased impact either significantly or to some extent. Graph 17. Please assess what level of impact the environmental audits conducted by your SAI have had in helping government departments to. (% of SAIs, n=112) High impact Medium impact Low impact No impact N/A Formulate environmental legislation or environmental policies and programs 15% 38% 19% 10% 18% Evaluate their capacity to develop and implement environmental policies or programs 14% 45% 20% 4% 18% Improve the functioning of policies and programs 19% 54% 7% 4% 16% Generate their environmental indicators, performance measures, monitoring systems, or other policy information to evaluate environmental policy 13% 33% 25% 13% 16% Develop their environmental management systems 12% 30% 29% 12% 18% Produce their environmental reports 8% 25% 29% 21% 18%